justification for harmful behaviour
There are two belief systems below that could possibly influence someone’s behaviour:
1. There is an invisible god watching everything you do, assessing and judging your every action. You are essentially evil, and there is an evil angel trying to trick you into being your core evil self, but the good god who is watching you will try to help you be good by providing you with an innate sense of good and bad. However, no human, except for this god when he came to Earth, has ever been truly good so you’re fighting a losing battle. At some point in your existence this god will intervene and hold you accountable for the life you’ve led.
2. All your behaviour and your actions are as a direct result of your brain interacting with your environment. There is nothing you can do to control your actions or make decisions because you are powerless to change your brain or the input you receive. You may be held responsible for any harmful actions you take (through not fault of your own) by a civil authority, if you’re caught.
While I agree with the opening sentence in belief number 2, the conclusion is in itself a behaviour modifier. Spreading this kind of confused nonsense is expressing a misleading environmental influence that can lead people to justify all kinds of harmful behaviour. So, for avoidance of all doubt, here’s my take on things. Let’s call it number 3.
3. All your behaviour and your actions are as a direct result of your brain interacting with your environment. You can usefully influence the choices that other people make by interacting positively with them and spreading any information you have that can make life a more pleasant experience, both for yourself and others. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, because we are our decisions, and it is our responsibility to seek out information to make our own choices. We have a common thread of natural empathy that leads most humans when presented with the same information to reach similar conclusions about what is, and is not, acceptable behaviour. However, some people due to physical differences in their brain, or a lack of ‘normal’ empathetic input at key stages of development, may not conform to these generally accepted standards, or may in specific circumstances go against their empathetic instincts. They are still responsible for their own behaviour, and for seeking ways to control their actions. They are accountable to civil laws, which should be designed to deter and change harmful behaviour, as well as protect the rest of society.
Recognising that people’s choices can be strongly influenced by their environment is not the same as justifying any kind of behaviour that harms other people. Looking for ways to identify the root causes of harmful behaviour is the only practical way of seeking to bring about change generally. Condemning harmful behaviour as simply ‘evil’ and in need of punishment, while refusing to acknowledge genuine reasons behind it, is about as useful as the famed chocolate teapot.
We are products of our environments, genes and training and as such our actions I believe are out of our control. This does not justify any kind of behaviour, no it only acknowledges what I think is the case. If the case were different, I bet there would be no one in prison for I don’t think there are people who wish to be in jail. It is for the same reason why I think awards for good behaviour make little or no difference at all.
LikeLike
I think there’s a subtle distinction to be made – they are not ‘out of our control’, as it would make no sense to choose an action that our environment, genes and training (i.e. us, as a product) didn’t determine. Added to that, if we ‘give’ people (including ourselves) full responsibility for their actions, we are affecting their environment by encouraging them to think carefully about what they do.
LikeLike
You make no input in what genes you get. At the time of character formation [training] in early childhood and teen years, you make very little input if any in your training and you make very little choice about your environment. People can be told they are responsible, but this will not change how they will act. There are those few people who will go against the grain for whatever motivation.
LikeLike
“People can be told they are responsible, but this will not change how they will act.” Yes it will, it’s an environmental input.
LikeLike
I really am not happy with this. People do rotten things all the time but the majority do not.
The majority generally accept that while their environment/social conditions/ upbringing may be conducive to rape,murder and all sorts of mayhem they still don’t go ahead and do it.
And even if you removed all poverty, social iniquities etc etc I’ll bet there would still be people who who rape steal and kill just for the hell of it.
I reckon you are going to be barking up this tree until your throat is sore.
LikeLike
This is interesting. Have you ever looked at anything related to psychology? I don’t think humans are so very fancy or so very random. There are reasons behind all of our behaviours – it’s simply unscientific to suggest anything else. We’re all like Pavlov’s dogs – you ring the bell and we start salivating. It’s just a matter of finding the triggers for harmful behaviour and working to eliminate them. Honestly, you really would make an excellent Christian with this level of logic and lack of evidence underpinning your thoughts.
My throat is rather sore though, oddly enough. But apart from that, I’m making all this up as I go along, so it helps to have someone challenge it. Still makes perfect sense though.
LikeLike
Well it would…to you.
Yes, I did a bit of psychology at college , Pavlov, Piaget and Skinner.
And yes we can all be conditioned to behave or think one way or another.
Clockwork Orange comes to mind. But it can sill go wrong….
But this is not the point you are trying to make. Although you might think you are.
Human beings are not automatons and just because half the crowd in the Shed end of Stamford Bridge (Chelsea’s ground) might be effing mental and because of ‘social conditioning’ haul off and beat the crap out of Spurs fans does not mean that they are necessarily unaware of what they are doing.
If one person refrains from this behaviour, even though surrounded by mayhem then there is an element of individual choice involved
And I reiterate, there is never going to be an environment that is able to completely eliminate conditions that prevent some people hauling off and doing heinous things.
In fact, the very ‘utopian’ nature of any particular environment may just be the trigger to set some people off..
LikeLike
“In fact, the very ‘utopian’ nature of any particular environment may just be the trigger to set some people off..” Now you’re talking!
LikeLike
Regarding point one: The idea of humans being essentially evil is a product of the 16th century; it is not found in pre-reformation Christianity, though certain polemic sayings of St Augustine can be interpreted that way. The older notion of “original sin” is that human beings are essentially good but fragile and easily confused, thus prone to evil.
Regarding point three: would it be valid to say that human beings are “conditioned” by their culture, environment, and psychology, but not “determined” by it? That would save human freedom while acknowledging the role of other factors. In fact, it would also present a positive life project for people, giving them the opportunity to become more free as they learn to critique and move beyond their conditioning.
LikeLike
“The idea of humans being essentially evil is a product of the 16th century” And it seems to be growing in popularity in some sections of Christianity.
“would it be valid to say that human beings are “conditioned” by their culture, environment, and psychology, but not “determined” by it?” It would be fair to say conditioned, I guess it removes some of the misconceptions that can come with “determined”. I think the main point is that if your environmental conditioning insists know that you are responsible for your own behaviour, then it has the effect of making people more thoughtful about how they behave. Perhaps the inventors of Christianity had that in mind.
LikeLike
“We must believe in free will; we have no choice.” -Isaac Bashevis Singer
LikeLike
I think “free will” only becomes an issue if you believe a god created everything, and non-religious people have mistakenly got pulled along in that tired tide of thought. Why would it make sense to suggest our decisions come from anywhere other than us? How would we be able to make decisions based on anything other then our physical processors and our experiences? Somewhere along the line choice seems to get mixed up with magical influences or psychopathic randomness.
LikeLike
There’s actually quite a bit of philosophy relating to free will even outside the venue of religion. If at the basic level everything that happens in our bodies is merely a chemical reaction, is consciousness itself, and thus free will in turn, just an illusion? There is a rather compelling argument that, all our apparent experience to the contrary, we don’t actually make decisions, merely rationalize them once they’re made.
LikeLike
I know. And I think it’s all nonsense that stems from the dilemma religious people are faced with. Regardless of when we make the decision, or what factors influence our choices, they are our decisions..
LikeLike
Pingback: On choice, free will and other matters | Random thoughts